confluence_preview_page_anchor_block_update

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return values and the need to echo a hash, but does not confirm whether the operation is read-only or has any side effects. The name 'preview' suggests safety, but it's not explicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides critical output details. It is front-loaded and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values and their role in confirmation. It could mention the workflow (stage then preview then confirm) but still provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and next steps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. The description's mention of 'anchor-based block update' gives context but does not elaborate on parameter usage or specifics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it previews an anchor-based block update, which is distinct from sibling tools like stage or confirm. It specifies the verb 'preview' and resource 'anchor-based block update', making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this tool is used after staging and before confirming by mentioning a hash for the confirmed update call, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or when not to use alternatives. This leaves room for ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.